Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:
This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 13.10.2023 for AY 2017-18.
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Bhalotia 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition which is reproduced as under:
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being an individual having commission and brokerage income. The return of income for the AY 2017-18 have been filed declaring total income of Rs. 7,24,055/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examining the issue of cash deposit during demonetization period. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued, the assessee failed to comply with the terms of notices and never responded, as result of which, cash deposits amounting to Rs. 63,11,500/- is deemed to be an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.
The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the ground that the assessee in spite of giving sufficient opportunity did not furnish any necessary details/documentary evidences in support of his case.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order the assessee preferred an appeal before us.
The Ld. Counsel instead of entering into merit of the case has challenges the impugned order that the assessee has not been given any proper opportunity to be heard and his submission is that the assessee may be given an opportunity to place his case before the AO. He has filed medical papers in support of his contention of non- appearance before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel has also filed bank certificate for deposit of cash during demonetization period.
Contrary to that the Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.
We have perused the order of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), it appears that the AO has passed the order when there were no responses from the side of the assessee and further the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was no documentary evidence as well as details have been submitted by the assessee. We have Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Bhalotia perused the documents filed by the assessee and find that the assessee has filed bank statement with regard to deposit during demonetization period, medical papers related to the assessee’s wife Mrs. Aditi Bhalotia suffering from a critical disease commonly called as Brain Tumour, assessee’s brother Mr. Sree Ram Bhalotia’s medical paper and further submitted some documents related to the assessee’s continuous engagement into business related travelling. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that due to the aforesaid reason, the assessee could not be able to appear before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). His submission is that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences in support of the case and he should be given an opportunity to place all those documents before the AO. There is no doubt that the order passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of the assessee. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the AO, by setting aside the order passed by A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the case of the assessee is hereby restored in the file of the AO, AO is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee and going over the document placed by the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2024